If you just want stills, I'm sure there will be cheap enough / good enough cameras to meet your needs from Canon / Nikon etc. If however, you want a parity of quality across stills and motion, very high speed, or very high resolution, RED will suit your needs. The visually lossless REDCODE RAW codec would allow you to shoot many times more stills on a CF card than you can today, while keeping all the advantages of RAW. After going through about 6 CF cards doing a wedding earlier in the year, I'd certainly have found that useful, not to mention the hard drive space to back it all up.

As for claims, well, the proof is in the pudding, but the pudding is in the oven right now. The cooks are working on baking it as well and as fast as they can. I hope you can enjoy trying the puddings when they come out of the oven.

Graeme

I don't believe it. 24 MP isn't that great a difference from 21. About 7.5% increase in resolution. I'm not convinced that RED's RAW files are any better than anyone else's. As for being smaller, that would only be if they were compressed, not such an innovation. If it's lossy compression, it's lossy. The smaller the file is made through this compression, the more data is lost. If they do any more compression than Nikon does in its lossy scheme, then it will be noticed, despite RED's claims. Besides, as they constantly say on their site, the product is subject to DRASTIC change in specs and price. We don't even know what these will actually turn out to be!

In addition the only really interesting camera for high IQ stills is the FF35. With the viewfinder, handgrip, and battery, this will cost somewhere around $16,000, or more, likely more when it finally comes out. That doesn't include a lens. This is into medium format territory.

It also looks to weigh a good five+ pounds when equipped as a complete camera. For those complaining about the size and weight of the top Canons and Nikons, this is a boat anchor.

The other cameras are lightweight in IQ for stills, or way too expensive.

You can get medium format cameras from well respected manufacturers with equal, or higher IQ for well under what they are asking. RED's cameras are also woefully lacking in any modern ergonomic features.

Whatever you say, these are video cameras first, and still cameras second.

I don't believe it. 24 MP isn't that great a difference from 21. About 7.5% increase in resolution. I'm not convinced that RED's RAW files are any better than anyone else's. As for being smaller, that would only be if they were compressed, not such an innovation. If it's lossy compression, it's lossy. The smaller the file is made through this compression, the more data is lost. If they do any more compression than Nikon does in its lossy scheme, then it will be noticed, despite RED's claims. Besides, as they constantly say on their site, the product is subject to DRASTIC change in specs and price. We don't even know what these will actually turn out to be!

In addition the only really interesting camera for high IQ stills is the FF35. With the viewfinder, handgrip, and battery, this will cost somewhere around $16,000, or more, likely more when it finally comes out. That doesn't include a lens. This is into medium format territory.

It also looks to weigh a good five+ pounds when equipped as a complete camera. For those complaining about the size and weight of the top Canons and Nikons, this is a boat anchor.

The other cameras are lightweight in IQ for stills, or way too expensive.

You can get medium format cameras from well respected manufacturers with equal, or higher IQ for well under what they are asking. RED's cameras are also woefully lacking in any modern ergonomic features.

Whatever you say, these are video cameras first, and still cameras second.

Not video cameras, they are moving raw image capturing devices normally requiring post work to become "video", although RED has mentioned that video out taps in lower rez could be comming. Video is something else, like JPEG vs RAW, it has a colour space, colour encoding scheme ala 4:2:0, codec and compression baked in and it has WB and contrast dialled in. RED is definitely not a video camera in the normal sense.

And in my opinion RED cameras is not about knocking over stills cameras, its about providing both moving image and stills possibilities from the same equipment having the same expression and look - either from a stream of images or singles - and keeping it RAW.If you are happy with shooting JPG from a dSLR or some other camera - RED cameras might not be the best choice. If you feel RAW is absolutely necessary for your stills workflow, shooting baked-in video from a tiny chip should feel wrong and limited. If not you are inconsitent between stills and moving image work in my view. RED cameras is about providing the same flexibility and artistic freedom as we are used to from our MFDB's or dSLR's in RAW mode.I care little for the rez as long as its sufficient, I simply must have the RAW option though, even if it is from a 2/3" chip or from a 645 chip.We all have different needs though.MHO.

Robin, I think you're good with what you're saying. RED is RAW motion and stills images treated as equals. It's about megapixels per second sustained, rather than just resolution alone. I can understand how that does not excite some people at all, but we've only just began to explore what can be done with this new digital cinema technology. I'm personally very excited by it all....

If you are happy with shooting JPG from a dSLR or some other camera - RED cameras might not be the best choice. If you feel RAW is absolutely necessary for your stills workflow, shooting baked-in video from a tiny chip should feel wrong and limited. If not you are inconsitent between stills and moving image work in my view. RED cameras is about providing the same flexibility and artistic freedom as we are used to from our MFDB's or dSLR's in RAW mode.

One of the main reasons why I think the RED is such a good camera.

I had my video kit stolen some years back. I never replaced it as I hated the crappy compromised cameras that were marketed with umpteen useless features, that supposedly looked good when doing feature lists in ads. The video equivalent of my megapixels are more numerous than your megapixels in still cameras. Not to mention dribble marketing, where the features are very slightly improved every year, when it was obvious that it was just done to make this year's model look marginally better than last year's crippled model. Sadly, not having the money that Jim Jannard has, I was unable to manufacture the sort of camera I thought should be made.

Not video cameras, they are moving raw image capturing devices normally requiring post work to become "video", although RED has mentioned that video out taps in lower rez could be comming. Video is something else, like JPEG vs RAW, it has a colour space, colour encoding scheme ala 4:2:0, codec and compression baked in and it has WB and contrast dialled in. RED is definitely not a video camera in the normal sense.

And in my opinion RED cameras is not about knocking over stills cameras, its about providing both moving image and stills possibilities from the same equipment having the same expression and look - either from a stream of images or singles - and keeping it RAW.If you are happy with shooting JPG from a dSLR or some other camera - RED cameras might not be the best choice. If you feel RAW is absolutely necessary for your stills workflow, shooting baked-in video from a tiny chip should feel wrong and limited. If not you are inconsitent between stills and moving image work in my view. RED cameras is about providing the same flexibility and artistic freedom as we are used to from our MFDB's or dSLR's in RAW mode.I care little for the rez as long as its sufficient, I simply must have the RAW option though, even if it is from a 2/3" chip or from a 645 chip.We all have different needs though.MHO.

Video is what you get with shooting a sequence of stills, whatever the codec, that will result in a motion related file that one will be watching as a "movie".

It doesn't really matter what they want to call it, or you want to call it, it's what its used for that determines what it is. I'm not interested in semantics. You might as well say the same thing about film based movies if you like. They're still movies, or Tv shows, etc. The fact that one "still" can be used by itself has nothing to do with it.

These cameras take stills and video. That's what they're for,

But they're designed primarily for video, not stills.

Well, he made a big fuss about setting Canon and Nikon back on their collectives asses on his site. He was pretty forward about that.

I had my video kit stolen some years back. I never replaced it as I hated the crappy compromised cameras that were marketed with umpteen useless features, that supposedly looked good when doing feature lists in ads. The video equivalent of my megapixels are more numerous than your megapixels in still cameras. Not to mention dribble marketing, where the features are very slightly improved every year, when it was obvious that it was just done to make this year's model look marginally better than last year's crippled model. Sadly, not having the money that Jim Jannard has, I was unable to manufacture the sort of camera I thought should be made.

What you may think of as umpteen useless features, most videographers think of as necessities.

What a pain to do in post what should have been done in the original shoot.

There are many things you simly can't do well in post, RAW or not, and this goes for stills as well as for motion.

I certainly do think these cameras have their place, but I do think it will be rather limited in many circumstances.

What you may think of as umpteen useless features, most videographers think of as necessities.

What a pain to do in post what should have been done in the original shoot.

There are many things you simly can't do well in post, RAW or not, and this goes for stills as well as for motion.

I certainly do think these cameras have their place, but I do think it will be rather limited in many circumstances.

Just as JPEG still work flows have their use alongside RAW still work flows. However calling RED a video camera is similar to treating RAW and JPEG as the same thing - typically going directly from RAW to TIFF/JPEG without changing the parameters first. Some do it but its not the most optimized of work flows. No matter if one agrees or not to the RAW being an advantage or not - RED is RAW and RAW is not video just as JPEG and RAW differs in the stills world.

Personally I fail to see today's RAW work flow for stills to be "rather limited in many circumstances" so I believe that motion RAW will take off in a short time as it did some years back with stills.

The pain in post is not about doing what you should have done in the shoot (sometimes it is as a shortcut has been taken and needs to be corrected), its about having the means and possibilities to take it further.

All this is such a deja vu from some years back when stills went from JPEG/TIFF to RAW and some people were hard to turn. Today this isn't an issue any more as the ones who benefits from either work flow simply uses that work flow. If you feel RAW video isn't for you then drop it, however others might not agree with you and choose differently.

The times are changing and I feel they are changing for the better in this regard. I'm thrilled to expand and change my business model accordingly, change is good MHO.

As for being smaller, that would only be if they were compressed, not such an innovation.

Not such an innovation ?

Innovation in compression is THE innovation

Good compression doesnt have to degrade the image - its just a better way of saying the same thing - although I am confused how a complex image can be compressed without loss - Im not a compression engineer..

How good REDs compression is I dont know but dont underestimate the technology

Just as JPEG still work flows have their use alongside RAW still work flows. However calling RED a video camera is similar to treating RAW and JPEG as the same thing - typically going directly from RAW to TIFF/JPEG without changing the parameters first. Some do it but its not the most optimized of work flows. No matter if one agrees or not to the RAW being an advantage or not - RED is RAW and RAW is not video just as JPEG and RAW differs in the stills world.

Personally I fail to see today's RAW work flow for stills to be "rather limited in many circumstances" so I believe that motion RAW will take off in a short time as it did some years back with stills.

The pain in post is not about doing what you should have done in the shoot (sometimes it is as a shortcut has been taken and needs to be corrected), its about having the means and possibilities to take it further.

All this is such a deja vu from some years back when stills went from JPEG/TIFF to RAW and some people were hard to turn. Today this isn't an issue any more as the ones who benefits from either work flow simply uses that work flow. If you feel RAW video isn't for you then drop it, however others might not agree with you and choose differently.

The times are changing and I feel they are changing for the better in this regard. I'm thrilled to expand and change my business model accordingly, change is good MHO.

Why are you bringing up JPEG? I didn't mention that. I never use JPEG myself, and it has nothing to do with the conversation. Is assuming that someone who doesn't think these cameras are as wonderful as some think uses JPEG some sort of put-down, meaning that we can't possibly understand the wonderfullness of these bloated monsters?

Well, if you want to use these for stills, then go right ahead, assuming that they materialize a year from now. I can't see any advantages for the still photographer, and see many disadvantages.

What you may think of as umpteen useless features, most videographers think of as necessities.

The majority of people would like a wider angle lens on their cameras, not a telephoto that is absurdly long. But a 4x but very useful zoom range is not as impressive in ads or to dumb salespeople as a 10x [but far less useful]zoom range. Bigger numbers are always better in marketing!Plus, why assume I'm not a videographer and you missed a major point of the post. I was complaining about [price point +] trickle marketing, with each year having a very slightly tweaked camera, rather than simply releasing a decent camera in first place. Also the 'non-professiona'l cameras were crippled so you would have to pay an awful lot more just to get some basic features that are deliberately withheld.

Quote

What a pain to do in post what should have been done in the original shoot.

There are many things you simly can't do well in post, RAW or not, and this goes for stills as well as for motion.

Not quite grasped the benefits of RAW have you? It will be extremely useful for filming, especially for ease of grading [or timing as the Americans call it I believe] and will probably save a lot of money. Shooting RAW is not a subsitute for getting it right in camera, it's an addition to geting it right in camera. A fantastic addition. Plus if you do documentary work, where you have little or no control over lighting, then it will be even more useful.

Quote

I certainly do think these cameras have their place, but I do think it will be rather limited in many circumstances.

Why are you bringing up JPEG? I didn't mention that. I never use JPEG myself, and it has nothing to do with the conversation. Is assuming that someone who doesn't think these cameras are as wonderful as some think uses JPEG some sort of put-down, meaning that we can't possibly understand the wonderfullness of these bloated monsters?

You simply have not grasped the point of the JPEG reference have you? It is very germane to the conversation.The footage out of a digital camera is normally the moving equivilant of JPEG, RED however gives you a moving RAW file - an incredible achivement.

Quote

Well, if you want to use these for stills, then go right ahead, assuming that they materialize a year from now. I can't see any advantages for the still photographer, and see many disadvantages.

I'm not as concerned with the video portion, and yes, it is video.

These cameras were obviously not aimed at you and you don't actually have to buy one, so why not chill out.

You simply have not grasped the point of the JPEG reference have you? It is very germane to the conversation.The footage out of a digital camera is normally the moving equivalent of JPEG, RED however gives you a moving RAW file - an incredible achievement.

I believe that RED RAW is not the same as Nikon or Canon RAW because it is compressed RAW. How this degrades the image, I don't know, but it probably does. RED RAW might not even record every pixel position as many video recording codecs do (HDcam DVCproHD), but displays a 4k file after processing and decompression. Just speculating here, not criticizing. Maybe Graeme can address this?

And FWIW, I don't think digital motion capture takes the place of still photography due to the long exposure of motion picture frames and the associated motion blur. I would think one would want to set the camera to the type of image capture desired.

The majority of people would like a wider angle lens on their cameras, not a telephoto that is absurdly long. But a 4x but very useful zoom range is not as impressive in ads or to dumb salespeople as a 10x [but far less useful]zoom range. Bigger numbers are always better in marketing!

I'm curious as to how you know that "most" people would want this.

Quote

Plus, why assume I'm not a videographer and you missed a major point of the post. I was complaining about [price point +] trickle marketing, with each year having a very slightly tweaked camera, rather than simply releasing a decent camera in first place. Also the 'non-professiona'l cameras were crippled so you would have to pay an awful lot more just to get some basic features that are deliberately withheld.

I didn't assume anything about you. The major reason why technology trickles down is because it's expensive at first, and gets cheaper over time. Expensive cameras have the expensive features, later, cheaper cameras get them as the price drops. What else is new?

Quote

Not quite grasped the benefits of RAW have you? It will be extremely useful for filming, especially for ease of grading [or timing as the Americans call it I believe] and will probably save a lot of money. Shooting RAW is not a subsitute for getting it right in camera, it's an addition to geting it right in camera. A fantastic addition. Plus if you do documentary work, where you have little or no control over lighting, then it will be even more useful.

You can try to be insulting, but you haven't grasped that post production is very expensive, and RAW won't being those costs down. You also haven't grasped what most all professionals, and even amateurs know, which is that post can't bring the same look to the end product that doing it during the shoot can. Digital filters, for example, simply don't do what filters on the lens do, etc. I would hope you at least know that.

You simply have not grasped the point of the JPEG reference have you? It is very germane to the conversation.The footage out of a digital camera is normally the moving equivilant of JPEG, RED however gives you a moving RAW file - an incredible achivement.

First of all, you may have noticed that I'm mostly concerned with still photography here, not motion. I made that pretty clear. RED also made it very clear on their website that they were going to blow Canon and Nikon away. I don't see that as even remotely possible.

And no, I don't see RAW video as being an incredible achevement. Technical advances come all the time. this is simply a matter of moving the files out quickly, and letting enough memory absorb it. If it proves to be of major benefit, others will follow. If not, they won't.

Despite what RED groupies here may think, we'll have to wait to see how much of an advantage RAW is over uncompressed, or lossless compression for other professional video formats.

Quote

These cameras were obviously not aimed at you and you don't actually have to buy one, so why not chill out.

You may not recognize what a DISCUSSION forum is, but this is one. It isn't a RED cheerleading group. If you want that, you should go to REDs forum.

Without RED cheeerleading (he he), I think they're trying something different.The Pricing model did surprise me, but the Scarlet basic is spot on the $3,000 they mentioned (might be a loss leader)It's still interesting despite those that try and bring people down for innovation.

Yes, the compression records every pixel, just like the RAW you're used to. We don't throw pixels away (unless you asked the camera to record a cropped out region of the sensor for achieving even higher fps). The pixels go through a wavelet based compression system and are recorded as individual frames, so none of this long GOP motion estimation stuff that you use on a delivery codec like h.264 or MPEG2 to get the bit rates down to a very low level.

Because it's the full RAW data that gets recorded, you have the same latitude in post to manipulate the image at it's full bit depth and not get the kind of issues you get with manipulating normal video. Because wavelet compression is used, you don't get the awful blocky artifacts and ringing / mosquito noise that plague DCT codecs like JPEG, so the image remains clean and nice to work with.